Hades Canyon NUC - Intel+AMD ???

[Kenrou]

This would be nice in a LAN party, shame about the price

 

[trents]

The whole concept of NUCs and ultra small FF PC's a little misleading in that you have to factor in the space taken up by a beefy power brick.

 

[Kenrou]

You can just pile them up like bricks in a corner or below the table

 

[Alaric]

The whole concept of NUCs and ultra small FF PC's a little misleading in that you have to factor in the space taken up by a beefy power brick.

Meh, better than lugging my Enthoo Luxe to Bob's house. LOL

 

[freakdiablo]

Eh, not sure about LANs, as you have to drag along a screen/keyboard too, might as well start looking into low end gaming laptops at that point. This is the type of thing you'd stick in a stereo cabinet between the cable box and receiver or maybe if there's a VESA bracket that goes behind a TV, places where even a mITX build will be too big.

While I do like seeing this type of collaboration as it opens up more options, I feel like it's AMD saying they have no way to go toe to toe with Intel on the CPU front and basically admitting defeat...

 

[trents]

Why do you say that? It seems to me that it could be the opposite. Namely, that Intel is admitting their GPU products are inferior to AMD's.

What I would be more worried about it it leading to Intel buying out AMD. Not sure if the courts would permit this, howevre.

 

[freakdiablo]

Why do you say that? It seems to me that it could be the opposite. Namely, that Intel is admitting their GPU products are inferior to AMD's.

What I would be more worried about it it leading to Intel buying out AMD. Not sure if the courts would permit this, howevre.

It raises the question that if AMD had something with amazing performance per watt on the CPU side in the works, why wouldn't they hold off and launch something like this on their own?

But I agree and think that's why Intel hasn't done it already - they'd get smacked down right quick, as Via isn't a serious player and after Apple went Intel, IBM is can be considered totally out of the home consumer market.

 

[Alaric]

AMD isn't really in a position to try and foist a $1000 NUC off on the public. There are still enough people who will see the big blue "I" and go for it, though. At least, that's Intel's marketing plan. LOL

 

[trents]

It raises the question that if AMD had something with amazing performance per watt on the CPU side in the works, why wouldn't they hold off and launch something like this on their own?

But I agree and think that's why Intel hasn't done it already - they'd get smacked down right quick, as Via isn't a serious player and after Apple went Intel, IBM is can be considered totally out of the home consumer market.

That's no secret. We already know that and it has been that way for years. People don't buy AMD components because they have superior performance per watt to Intel. They buy them because they provide superior performance per dollar. And the one edge AMD has over Intel from a performance perspective is in the APU sector. So this collaboration seems in keeping with that. It seems like a tacit acknowledgement on Inte's part that "you do that part better than we do."

 

[Blaylock]

It's pretty neat however you slice it. I like when competitors collaborate. It's usually a win-win for us consumers.

 

[EarthDog]

That's no secret. We already know that and it has been that way for years. People don't buy AMD components because they have superior performance per watt to Intel. They buy them because they provide superior performance per dollar. And the one edge AMD has over Intel from a performance perspective is in the APU sector. So this collaboration seems in keeping with that. It seems like a tacit acknowledgement on Inte's part that "you do that part better than we do."

Except now they have both and did so since Ryzen's release.

 

[trents]

Except now they have both and did so since Ryzen's release.

Only on well-multithreaded tasks. The per watt per core performance of Intel CPUs is still superior.

 

[EarthDog]

..and then there is the 2 series... where IPC is strikingly similar with TDP lower as well as price.

Gone are the days where the AMD processor is inferior and bought only because of price : performance. They are real players in the game now, on all fronts. That thinking should go the way of the dodo.

 

[mackerel]

..and then there is the 2 series... where IPC is strikingly similar with TDP lower as well as price.

Has 2000 series been tested to compare performance per watt in a comparable scenario? AMD TDP is generally lower as the Intel CPUs do more peak work with AVX2, but outside of those use cases Ryzen 1000 was pretty similar to Intel (you can cherry pick CPUs to give advantage to either side).

 

[EarthDog]

Many reviews have tested that, yes. While there may be some back and forth (not looking to get into your testing, mack), its generally held now that both in multi-threaded applications and single threaded applications, clock for clock they are quite similar. A percent or two I am calling a wash.

The stigma that trents mentioned should, IMO, go away, particularly with the 2 series AMD CPUs. The biggest difference between these CPUs are price and overclocking abilities (or lack thereof on AMD).

 

[Blaylock]

I find it odd that the go to choice for overclocking is now Intel. AMD has been the better overclocker for so many generations it's just hard to even read it the other way with out thinking there was a typo.

 

[mackerel]

AMD let you overclock on all CPUs on most mobos, but have little headroom. Intel limit you on CPUs and mobos, but you have more potential headroom... can't win them all.

Maybe I'm getting old, outside of benching I find I leave systems stock for 24/7 operation. If I get a random crash, I'm forever wondering if it isn't as stable as I thought... plus power efficiency gets more important the more systems you run!

 

[EarthDog]

Have to pay to play.

I'm on the way up there and still overclock. My son's system is stock (Ryzen 1500x), but mine 7960X is 4.5 GHz all cores no avx offset. I could run my cherry 7900X at 4.7 GHz+ 24/7 the same way. My overclocking is stable these days as I don't have the time to clock memory, clock cache, for little gains and more chance of instability.

But yeah, AMD can't even get past its own boost clocks today, such a role reversal for high clock speeds.

 

[trents]

Many reviews have tested that, yes. While there may be some back and forth (not looking to get into your testing, mack), its generally held now that both in multi-threaded applications and single threaded applications, clock for clock they are quite similar. A percent or two I am calling a wash.

The stigma that trents mentioned should, IMO, go away, particularly with the 2 series AMD CPUs. The biggest difference between these CPUs are price and overclocking abilities (or lack thereof on AMD).

Yes, but you just can't throw overclocking advantage out the window. In my original statement I was including that factor.

 

[mackerel]

My overclocking is stable these days as I don't have the time to clock memory, clock cache, for little gains and more chance of instability.

My definition of 24/7 stability may differ from yours I consider one error running Prime95 like loads in 3 months to be unstable. I probably should be looking at Xeons and ECC, but don't want to pay for it... and also no OC. Just get reasonable consumer kit and don't try to be a hero outside of a hwbot submission or the monthly challenge here.

In the past I usually go for max stable stock voltage clock then back off a multiplier step for extra heardoom, but even that doesn't feel adequate any more. Seems to be more of a stability grey zone than there used to be, where it was more all or nothing.